[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Proposal Accepted (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

Hi there,

* APEX NCC ORG
>
> Can you provide an example of using and registering an 
> AGGREGATED-BY-LIR object for IPV4?
> Who is this for and when?
>
It has exactly the same use case as AGGREGATED-BY-LIR for IPv6. It is 
primarily intended for LIRs which need to make a large number of 
essentially identical assignments, which can then be aggregated into a 
single database object rather than registering a bunch of redundant objects.

Here's an example, which represent 256 essential identical ASSIGNED PA 
objects:

inetnum: 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255
netname: CLOUDPROVIDER-CUSTOMER-VMS
descr: IP addresses dynamically assigned to virtual machines running in 
CloudProvider's public cloud infrastructure # this is optional
assignment-size: 32 # this is optional
country: NO
admin-c: CLOUDPROVIDER-RIPE
tech-c: CLOUDPROVIDER-RIPE
status: AGGREGATED-BY-LIR
mnt-by: CLOUDPROVIDER-MNT
source: RIPE


> Is its use mandatory?
>
Not at all, feel free to ignore it and continue doing whatever you've 
been doing so far.


> Initially, the assignment policy was discussed as an assignment for 
> cloud providers.
> What should a provider do, for example, if it has a status ASSIGNED PA 
> object (for example /20),
> splits it into /24 objects also like ASSIGNED PA with additional 
> routes obj. for its end clients (without NAT / with NAT)?
>
I do not quite understand this use case. I believe it is not common to 
split an ASSIGNED PA object into more specific ASSIGNED PA objects. To 
be honest, I didn't even know that was possible. Anyway…


> Is it here an AGGREGATED-BY-LIR  status objects? Or NOT?
>
…as I understand it, in your example, the 16 /24 ASSIGNED PA objects 
have unique mnt-routes: values. If so, that means you cannot aggregate 
the 16 /24s into a single AGGREGATED-BY-LIR object.

Tore